SCIENTIA

2008

The Journal of the Honors Program

About the Author

Elizabeth Damiano is receiving her Bachelor of Arts in Art Education. After graduation, Elizabeth plans to attend Mount Saint Mary College in Newburgh, New York, for graduate school to attain her Masters in Special Education. Elizabeth has been a member of Marywood’s student chapter of the Pennsylvania Art Education Association for the past three years, and is currently the secretary. Elizabeth is also a member of the Delta Epsilon Sigma National Honor Society for Catholic Universities. Elizabeth would like to first and foremost thank the Lord for allowing all things to become possible in her life. She would also like to thank all of the faculty members at Marywood who have enriched her college experience within the past four years. Lastly, Elizabeth would like to thank her family for their continuous love and support.

92

Grading the Visual Arts at the Elementary School Level

Elizabeth Damiano

“Each second we live is a new and unique moment of the universe, a moment that will never be again. And what do we teach our children? We teach them that two and two make four, and that Paris is the capital of France. When will we also teach them what they are? We should say to each of them: Do you know what you are? You are a marvel. You are unique. In all the years that have passed, there has never been another child like you. Your legs, your arms, your clever fingers, the way you move. You may become a Shakespeare, a Michelangelo, a Beethoven. You have the capacity for anything. Yes, you are a marvel. And when you grow up, can you then harm another who is, like you, a marvel? You must work, we must all work, to make the world worthy of its children.” - Pablo Picasso

Abstract

There has been much debate regarding the Visual Arts grading methodologies in the elementary school system. Some art educators are avid believers in allowing children to be completely self expressive, with little to no structure provided for them in the classroom. They maintain that less structure enables each individual child to develop his/her uniqueness. Others, conversely, believe that the arts should be treated just like any other subject matter, and, therefore, instruction should include quizzes and tests, notes and handouts, with strict guidelines and rules for each lesson. This debate has led to recent changes regarding Visual Arts standards of assessment.

Introduction

“You study, you learn, but you guard the original naïveté”-Henri Matisse

Assessment is a difficult area in the educational system upon which to find agreement,

and the consensus is even less evident in the visual arts. What exactly is the difference between

receiving an A or a D grade in art? What do these grades actually mean in regard to children’s

growth in creativity and expression? Are the grades based on individual growth and learning, or

solely structured around a teacher’s rubric system? Questions such as these are what make

assessment in the visual arts so difficult.

This thesis’ purpose is to look at grading in the Visual Arts at the elementary school

level. Chapter One elucidates the psychologist and art educator Viktor Lowenfeld’s stages of

artistic development during the elementary school years. These stages are then compared to

children’s holistic development at each stage. Chapter Two covers the different implications of

93

grading in the art system. Further, it looks at the pros and cons of grading and offers different

methods of assessment for art educators. Lastly, Chapter Three consists of research that has been

conducted by the author. The research in Chapter Three concerns art educators in the states of

New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. A questionnaire is employed with the intent of

analyzing the opinions of a sample of art teachers to see if there is any consensus on grading

procedures in the Visual Arts at the elementary school level.

I. Stages of Artistic Development

In his book Creative and Mental Growth, the art educator and psychologist Viktor

Lowenfeld describes an individual’s artistic stages of development. This thesis references stages

of artistic development. However, many art educators and psychologists have developed their

own artistic stages comparable to his.

Lowenfeld established the stages of artistic development over two decades ago, yet his

theory still informs us of the artistic learning theories. Modern psychologists and art educators

have used Lowenfeld’s research and findings as a blueprint and basis for their own examinations

in the field of art education: recent researchers echo exactly what Lowenfeld said years ago.

Therefore, this thesis uses Lowenfeld’s research and stages of artistic development, since that is

where the seeds of recent research were sown.

These artistic stages are akin to children’s developmental patterns as well: “[T]hese

developmental stages are not merely developmental stages in art, but are developmental stages in

the whole growth pattern and that the art product is merely an indication of this total growth”

(Lowenfeld, 1982). Therefore, it should not be a surprise that the psychologist Jean Piaget’s

theory of human development parallels Lowenfeld’s artistic learning theory.

Lowenfeld claims there are five artistic developmental stages, beginning at age two: the

scribbling stage, the pre-schematic stage, the schematic stage, the gang age, and the pseudo-

naturalistic stage. While all five stages are important to consider, this thesis will concentrate on

the pre-schematic stage, the schematic stage, and the gang age, because they are all developing

as children are in the elementary school. While the family’s influence on a child is an enormous

factor in the child’s development and learning behaviors, this chapter focuses on Lowenfeld’s

artistic stages as they relate to children’s learning. The family’s influence will not be discussed

94

here. All of the artwork in this thesis is provided by Moscow Elementary Center in Moscow,

Pennsylvania, or from the author’s personal collection.

The Pre-Schematic Stage

The second stage of artistic development, the pre-schematic stage, usually occurs when a

child is between the ages of four and seven years. There are fewer important artistic

characteristics at the pre-schematic stage than at the following two stages. This is because

children are still very young and their developmental abilities move at a much slower rate than

those of older children. Consequently, the section on the pre-schematic stage will have fewer

details than those found in the following stages.

During the pre-schematic stage the first representational forms are seen: a radial or sun

form, a person drawn with a circle as a representation for the head, lines as symbols for legs and

arms (creating a “tadpole” shape), and letter and number shapes (Simpson, 1998). Although the

figures drawn at this stage are the same shape, children may differentiate between two different

people or genders by adding embellishments to the figure and/or changing the color of the figure.

For example, a child may draw long curly hair and eyelashes on the head of one figure to

represent “mom” and not use these embellishments to represent “dad”.

The following pictures are examples of artwork done by children at the pre-schematic

stage of development. In the first picture, the reindeer is drawn in the most basic form, with

antlers on the top of the reindeer’s head to indicate that this form is a reindeer. In the second

drawing, the child scribbles an image that represents a figure. The third image is a picture of

Santa Claus, evident in the child’s rendering of a hat on top of Santa’s head, a beard, and the

written words “HO HO HO”. The fourth image is a picture of a snowman next to a Christmas

tree. The fifth image appears to be a well developed drawing of a basketball game; however, note

that the figures are drawn simplistically:

95

1.

2.

96

3.

97

4.

5.

98

At the pre-schematic stage, children’s art does not seem altered by the real world beyond

their immediate experience. Lowenfeld’s book Creative and mental growth used research by

Barrett and Light (1976) to demonstrate this. Barrett and Light read a story to children about a

house without doors. When the children were asked to draw a house without doors, the children

did not seem affected by the story, and all of the houses had doors included in their drawings

(Lowenfeld, 1982). Although there are some instances at this stage where color is used to

indicate a particular person, often color is not very important; rather it is used to excite and

stimulate children’s artistic nature. Another significant aspect of the pre-schematic stage is the

child’s inability to relate objects to each other, but, rather, to deal with the space around them.

Rarely will somebody see a baseline used by children because they tend to draw intrinsically and

out of curiosity; they are unable to relate objects to one another. (Lowenfeld, 1982)

Holistic Development at the Pre-Schematic Stage

Judith Simpson’s book Understanding the learner treats the natural and holistic

development of children and how it corresponds to each stage of artistic development. Although

it is not necessary to study every holistic method of growth in relation to children’s artistic stages

of development, it is important to correlate a few to show why children may create art the way

that they do.

Cognitively, during the pre-schematic stage, children are beginning to develop symbolic

and representational thought. They are curious and often ask the question “Why?” because of

their constant desire to experiment. Children are in an egocentric stage, where their thoughts are

based on themselves and their own immediate interaction with the world. This explains their

inability to use a baseline to orient themselves to the objects around them (Simpson, 1998).

Lowenfeld explains that children tend to draw humans at this stage with a circle as a

representation of a head and lines to indicate arms and legs, because this is what is seen in a very

simplified form when looking straight ahead at a figure: a circle and lines as representations for a

head, and arms and legs (Lowenfeld, 1982).

The Schematic Stage

The third stage of artistic development, the schematic stage, occurs when children are

between the ages of seven and nine years old. Generally, children at this stage do not have a

99

particular interest in the principles and elements of art and design: line, shape, value, texture,

direction, size, color, balance, unity, repetition, gradation, contrast, harmony, and dominance.

Children are more interested in the process of creating art; art is done purely for self expression

(Lowenfeld, 1982).

Composition at the schematic stage

A schema, or repeated image, develops at this stage in children’s art, hence the name

“schematic”. Children will often develop a schema in their artwork, but the schema will have no

personal relationship to the child. Although children will use a repeated image in their artwork,

the image does not necessarily have a connection to their lives. For example, a child may

produce a schema of a man. A child may create numerous pictures with a man doing different

activities in each picture, such as running, swimming, walking, sleeping, etc. However, there is

no correlation among the pictures. The development of the schema allows children to begin to

relate to others and to feel a part of the environment (Lowenfeld, 1982).

Compositionally, children at this stage will begin to compose objects into pictures. They

will make sure that their figures or objects fit perfectly within the page. During this stage

children begin to draw humans with distinct heads and torsos; the eyes, mouth, hair, hands,

fingers, feet, neck and the nose of humans are each represented differently. Rather than just a

body, clothing is also drawn on figures to indicate different people as well as gender and age

differences. Figures in children’s work at this stage are often in the frontal view as opposed to

side or back views. Mothers in pictures are often larger in scale than fathers and other figures in

the picture because, at this stage, mothers often play a larger role than anyone else in the lives of

children (Simpson, 1998).

In figures one and two, the girls in the drawing have an emphasis on the facial features.

In figure one, the teeth are all drawn and the head is much larger in proportion to the rest of the

girl’s body; in the second drawing the eyes and eye lashes are drawn very distinctly. Figures

three through six are all examples of children at this stage’s ability to differentiate between

genders through the usage of dress and color. Figures seven and eight are examples of the mother

drawn larger in scale in comparison to the rest of the child’s family.

100

1.

2.

101

3.

4.

102

5.

6.

103

7.

8.

104

Another contributing component in the compositional aspect of the schematic stage for

children is the use of a baseline or ground line. A baseline in children’s art is seen at the bottom

of the artwork and is usually represented as grass, a floor, or street. The baseline indicates the

relationship of objects in the picture. Although a baseline is generally viewed at the bottom of

the page for children, it can also be viewed as a circular image, such as a table with family

members eating around the table. A skyline may also be found in children’s work at this stage

(Lowenfeld, 1982) (Simpson, 1998).

All of the following paintings use a baseline:

1.

105

2.

3.

106

4.

5.

107

Space-Time Relationship at the Schematic Stage

Children at the schematic stage of development use their drawings as an indication of

time, where drawings have a pattern indicating a sequence of events. Often, the space-time

relationship is for children to tell stories in their art: different actions are presented, leading to a

particular event the child wants to create. Journeys, trips, and travel are also reasons for this

space-time relationship. Similar to comic strips, children’s “stories” may be viewed in different

pictures in order to see a completed event (Lowenfeld, 1982), (Simpson, 1998).

Color in the Schematic Stage

At this stage of their development, children begin to recognize a relationship between

color and object in their artwork. For example, children at this stage will make their grass green,

the sky blue, and the sun yellow. Each specific color is based on the realistic color of an object,

although the colors used are not the natural colors of the object. Typically, grass is not bright

green, even though children at this stage create pictures with bright green paint or crayons.

Neither is the sky a perfect blue, etc.

Children’s first real and personal relationship with an object and its color will result in

the color schema in their art. For instance, a child may be accustomed to a muddy yard. As a

result, brown may be the color of the ground in this child’s art, regardless of whether or not there

is grass shown in the artwork (Lowenfeld, 1982), (Simpson, 1998). When colors bleed together

in children’s artwork, it results in frustration for the child because the child sees this as a mistake

in the painting. (Lowenfeld, 1982). Figures 3 and 4 show how children artists in the schematic

stage used color in their composition.

Holistic Development at the Schematic Stage

Cognitively, children are beginning to think more as adults; however, they are still unable

to think abstractly. Children are able to begin to create relationships with themselves and other

objects around them. As previously indicated, this can be explained through the use of the

baseline in children’s art. Children are able to categorize information, as was evident in the

children’s ability to see the relationship between object and color, as well as their frustrations

when colors mix together without their intending them to do so (Lowenfeld, 1982), (Simpson,

1998).

108

Socially, children begin to recognize appropriate and inappropriate behaviors for

different social settings, such as at school, home and play. Children begin to learn rules of what

is acceptable and not acceptable in social settings. More importantly, when in the art classroom,

“children will attempt to understand what the teacher wants, instead of just freely interacting

with materials” (Simpson, 1998).

The Gang Age

The fourth stage of artistic development is the age of dawning realism, or the gang age,

which occurs when children are between the ages of nine and twelve years. During the gang age,

children tend to become disinterested in art because of their lack of confidence as artists.

Although one more stage follows the gang age in one’s artistic development, many people

remain fixed in this fourth stage for the rest of their lives, without developing further artistically

(Lowenfeld, 1982).

At this stage, children’s desire to create art often leads to frustration when they feel they

“failed” at creating a realistic piece of art. Children become frustrated if they cannot make a

perfect nose on a figure, or make a house look three-dimensional. This frustration leads children

to create images of cartoon-like characters as a “cover-up” to their feelings of inferiority

regarding their artistic talent. They tend to feel comfortable only with a pencil as a tool because

they feel they have entire control of their artwork, they can erase their artwork and can use great

detail in their drawings (Lowenfeld, 1982) (Simpson, 1998).

Composition in the Gang Age

Compositionally, there is no longer the use of a baseline in children’s art at this stage but,

instead, a horizon line: various baselines in the picture, such as a sky drawn to the ground,

mountains, hills, and the overlapping of an image, creating near, middle, and far distance

(Lowenfeld, 1982), (Simpson, 1998).

Children begin to draw figures with great detail and from varying viewpoints. Females, at

this stage, tend to draw hearts, rainbows, animals (especially horses), domestic scenes, and

fashion models, all of which are indications of freedom, running, and joyful expressions of

growing up. Males generally draw cars, superheroes, war scenes, and sporting events, all of

which are symbols of a fast, active, and loud lifestyle (Lowenfeld, 1982), (Simpson, 1998).

109

The first three drawings were done by females, as evident in the subject matter; the fourth

and fifth images were done by males:

1.

2.

110

3.

4.

111

5.

Color in the Gang Age

As stated earlier, children use pencil and move away from color in their artwork in the

gang age, due to their frustration in not achieving completely realistic color schemes. However,

at this stage, children begin to develop an understanding of the concept of realistic and natural

color. They can identify the difference, for example, between the blue color of the sky versus the

blue color of the ocean. Color may also be used to emphasize or convey psychological meaning

in art. For example, a child may draw a green face to resemble jealousy (Simpson, 1998),

(Lowenfeld, 1982).

Notice the use of horizon lines in the following drawings and paintings, found in Figures

1 through 8. The pencil drawings show the children’s ability to pay close attention to detail, and

the last two color images show the children’s ability and attempt to use realistic colors:

112

1.

2.

113

3.

4.

114

5.

6.

115

7.

8.

116

Holistic Development at the Gang Age

Children’s cognitive growth at this stage surpasses their physical development. Children

want to create an ideal image; however, the physical development behind the work keeps the

image from being “perfect”, and children become frustrated with themselves when they feel they

failed at their artwork (Lowenfeld, 1982), ( Simpson, 1998).

Cognitively, children are able to see fully the interrelatedness of objects, thus explaining

the ability of children at this stage to create pictures that contain overlapped images in their

drawings. Children also become very curious about people. They tend to become very critical of

themselves and others; therefore, many children at this stage lose interest in the arts due to their

own self consciousness (Lowenfeld, 1982), (Simpson, 1998).

Emotionally, children come to the realization that expectations from parents, peers, and

teachers differ from one another. Similarly, children create their own ideal of right and wrong;

these ideals create frustration when children are unable to measure up to that desired outcome in

their art piece (Lowenfeld, 1982), (Simpson, 1998).

The social development of children at this age is very important and influences heavily

their artistic development. Enormous peer influence emerges at this stage, and the desire to be

accepted in peer groups becomes a predominant force in the children’s life. Rules for peer

acceptance become important, and children often find themselves following “rules” in hopes of

gaining acceptance from peers. Large groups are more important to children than individuals. At

this point, children will identify some children as “good” artists, usually those who draw

realistically and use great detail. Consequently, children who do not fit into the “good” artist

category feel inadequate and lose interest in the arts. Lastly, gender differences emerge,

explaining why subject matter for females and males is very different (Lowenfeld, 1982),

(Simpson, 1998).

117

II. Implications in Art Education

“Arts…may be to learning what parental love is to a child: Often invisible, impossible to

measure, but it’s what makes all the difference”-Eric Jensen

The National Art Education Association

The National Art Education Association (NAEA) was founded in 1947 and serves in all

fifty states in the United States of America, the District of Columbia, some Canadian provinces,

and twenty-five foreign countries. The NAEA’s function is to promote art education “through

professional development, service, advancement of knowledge and leadership” (NAEA, 2008).

In April 1998, the Clinton administration developed the Goals 2000 Act, an educational

act for all academic subjects in public schools nationwide. The Goals 2000 Act was designed to

“develop clear and rigorous standards for what every child should know and be able to do”

(2008). The NAEA, in response, developed a set of objective requirements, or standards, in the

Visual Arts program in schools nationwide, ranging from grades kindergarten through twelve.

The standards are divided into four categories: Production, Art History, Aesthetic Response, and

Criticism. All four categories of the Visual Art standards must be met in all art lessons (NAEA,

2008).

These standards are designed not only to fulfill the Goals 2000 Act, but also to serve the

purpose of establishing a framework for teachers to use for evaluating artwork. For example, if a

standard is not met by the student, a teacher could then deduct points from the student’s overall

grade in the art classroom. These standards contribute greatly to the ongoing debate among

educators about grading in the Visual Arts because they are what set the basis for any evaluative

form of assessment.

Pros to Grading in the Arts

Eric Jensen’s book Arts with the brain in mind, Claudia Cornett’s book Creating meaning

through literature and the arts: An integration resource for classroom teachers, and Kathleen

and James Strickland’s article “Grading: The square peg in the round hole”, present the reader

with a plethora of reasons why people assert there should be grades given in the visual arts. One

common reason, according to Jensen and Cornett, is that other disciplines are assessed. Art

118

teachers struggle to prove that the visual arts are equal in importance to other academic subjects,

such as reading, writing, math, science, and social studies. Using the same grading system for art

and other classroom subjects could gain respect for the visual arts program in the broader

academic world. In essence, the visual arts program could appear to be more legitimate when

compared with regular classroom subjects (Jensen, 2001). Another affirmation of grading that

Jensen and Cornett use is that people believe testing and assessment make students more

accountable for learning art (Jensen, 2001), (Cornett, 2007). Often, educators and administrators

need to see physical progress of each individual student’s learning, and the easiest form of this is

through grading the student. Lastly, Jensen states that more funding will be readily available to

schools that use grading in the arts.

Strickland’s article states that some educators believe it is necessary to link and balance

both the process and product of the student’s work and, therefore, grading enforces and enriches

the product (Strickland, 1998). Based on this information, educators who believe that the arts

should be graded are advocates of the formalist viewpoint; they believe that art should be looked

at based upon its physical realities and properties, as seen through the seven principles and

elements of art and design.

Problems with Grading the Elementary School Child in the Visual Arts

“Grading, whether with letter grades or numbers, is a square peg in a round hole. Grading

doesn’t exactly fit in a transactional classroom with authentic assessment and evaluation”

–Kathleen and James Strickland

Teacher’s Response to Graded Art

“At this level it would make more sense to grade the teacher, for it is the teacher who has been

able to motivate the children to do excellent work”-Viktor Lowenfeld

While it is difficult for teachers to balance creativity with academic rigor in the

classroom, it seems as though originality has almost completely been dismissed. In the article

“Ideational code-switching: Walking the talk about supporting student creativity in the

classroom,” Ronald Beghetto used M. Kennedy’s research and found that teachers often

disregard student creativity: “ ‘They give students a clear message that some ideas won’t be

119

talked about, even if they seem relevant and important to students’ ”(Beghetto, 2007). Further,

Beghetto states that students often become familiar with teachers’ expectations by the time they

reach fourth or fifth grade, and they adapt their responses to fit into what the teacher wants:

“Classroom discussions become more akin to a game of intellectual hide-and-seek rather than an

opportunity to express one’s creative ideas” (Beghetto, 2007). The problem is clear: students

disregard their own creativity to fit the demands and standards of conventional learning.

Robert Albert’s article “Some reasons why childhood creativity often fails to make it

past puberty into the real world,” states that people are against grading because they believe that

the teachers’ opinion of students greatly contributes to their grading habits for each child. This is

called the halo-effect: a teacher is more inclined to grade a student higher if the teacher likes or

knows the student well, and may be apt to drop a student’s grade simply because he/she does not

like the student (Albert, 1996). In “Grading: The square peg in the round hole,” authors

Kathleen and James Strickland state that grades appear to be concerned only with the product

rather than the growth and learning process for each individual child; therefore, it is difficult for

teachers to assess all of the students’ progress and growth with one single grade. In essence,

grading tends to deemphasize the importance of learning in the classroom, or the process,

making it a secondary component to the product of a letter grade (Strickland, 1998).

Student’s Response to Graded Art

“Grading in art has no function”-Viktor Lowenfeld

In reality, students are the ones who must earn their grades; however, they are aware of

teachers’ methods of grading, and therefore are apt to work for a grade rather than being

interested in learning. Stanley S. Madeja’s article “Alternative assessment strategies for schools”

states that educators are concerned with grading in the arts because it is difficult to compute a

creative process into one letter grade, and the quantification process is too subjective (Madeja,

2004). Students are supposed to be concerned with the experience they have with the art project.

When a teacher condenses the student’s experience into one grade, the grading seems unfair and

inaccurate.

Eric Jensen’s book Arts with the brain in mind defends the belief that arts in the

elementary school should not be graded. The author claims that the value of the arts is an internal

120

experience, rather than a formalist method of grading a product of an experience. Art’s natural

realm is ever changing and dynamic; it is not supposed to make sense or follow a particular

format. In essence, art “defies attempts at tidy definition” (Jensen, 2001). Further, Jensen states

that grading in the arts causes children to de-value their own creative expression, because they

are too concerned with the meeting of the teacher’s expectations: what is considered an “A” art

project, versus what is a “failing” art project.

In “Alternative assessment strategies for schools,” Stanley Madeja says that art students

are often afraid to create work that is original and inventive and, instead, will stick to creating

predictable art because they wish to attain a high grade (Madeja, 2004). Likewise, Lowenfeld

believes that grading is harmful for children in the arts because it focuses their attention on the

outcome of the project: “It can be particularly discouraging for a youngster who is beginning to

become involved in creative activity if the artwork is graded as a failure” (Lowenfeld, 1982).

Daniel Mendelowitz is quoted as saying in his book Children are artists, “There is nothing more

harmful to artistic expression than standardized expectations of behavior” (Mendelowitz, 1963).

Kathleen and James Strickland’s article also states that grading drives away the love of

learning for children, since they will be so concerned with the product rather than

the process of the assignment. As a result, this overwhelming concern and obsession with the

product leads to a higher increase in cheating (Strickland, 1998). In the visual arts, this

“cheating” may be noticeable by a child copying the artwork of the art teacher, or students

copying other peers who have already gained approval by the teacher. Daniel Mendelowitz

agrees that grades have a detrimental effect on a child’s artistic development: “Trying to draw in

a way to please others obstructs his expression and eventually he may give up attempting to

express himself at all and instead will repeat the patterns that constitute adults’ ideas of

‘correctness’” (Mendelowitz, 1963).

Methods of Assessment in the Visual Arts:

“It has to be honest, understandable, and purposeful”-Eric Jensen

Several methods of assessment in the arts focus on the process of the students’ work as

opposed to the product. Although assessment does in fact imply that work must be evaluated,

and thus the final result of the work will be assessed, there are methods of evaluation used in the

121

visual arts that consider the domains of students’ artistic experience. Again, these methods may

still seem invalid to educators who firmly believe that art should be an internal experience

between the student and his/her project; in this context, any form of assessment seems worthless

and void of any meaning.

The following sources were used to consolidate methods of assessment: Stanley S.

Madeja’s article “Alternative assessment strategies for schools;” Judith Simpson’s book

Understanding the learner; Kathleen and James Strickland’s article “Grading: The square peg in

the round hole;” Eric Jensen’s book Arts with the brain in mind; and Robert Albert’s article

“Some reasons why childhood creativity often fails to make it past puberty into the real world.”

While each source discusses different forms of assessment, all share common beliefs.

Each source states good attendance is a way a teacher may assess students at the

elementary school level in the visual arts. Continuous progress and review for young children

helps them retain information; therefore, it is important for children at this age to attend art

classes regularly. Young children should be in class as often as possible in order for learning to

occur. At the elementary school level, it is true that attendance is not always controlled by the

child. The parental figures in the child’s life are responsible for the child’s attendance. Therefore,

it seems unfair to use attendance as the criterion for assessment at the elementary school level,

because it is not the child’s responsibility.

Class participation is a way one can assess students at the elementary school level in the

visual arts. Although there are shy students who may be nervous about talking aloud in class, it is

important for teachers to motivate and encourage students to desire learning. Teachers should

take note of the students who answer questions, ask questions, and offer assistance to the teacher

and/or other classmates. While teachers are walking around the class and observing the students,

they should make sure to speak with each student individually and talk about each student’s

project or any other concern(s) the child may have. This is a good time for teachers to converse

with the students who may be too shy to speak aloud in front of the class, and to discuss with

them what they have been learning.

Student self assessment is another key component in the process of evaluating students.

Including each student in his/her own assessment process allows the student to reflect upon the

artistic process and experiences that occurred during class. Since the student is directly involved

in this form of assessment, the assessment will become more meaningful to the learner than if it

122

were based solely on the teacher’s observation of the student’s process and product. Student

assessment is very important and can be done through journaling or through a student/teacher

conference.

Peer feedback is another form of assessment. Although this type of assessment is

sometimes recommended, it can be detrimental to a student’s self-esteem, especially at the gang

age stage of development. As noted in Chapter One, children at the gang age are highly sensitive

to their peers. If their peers do not approve of their artwork or make fun of their work, students

may become more disinterested in art and neglect their creative thought. Peer feedback may

cause a student to become discouraged. Being mocked, and ridiculed, especially if the child is

already disliked, may adversely affect one’s artistic development. At an age when social

acceptance is one of the most important concerns for children, peer feedback seems to be an

opportunity for childhood bullying.

Lastly, using a portfolio is a way teachers can assess student learning. Madeja defines a

portfolio as being “a portable case for carrying…prints, or artwork” (Madeja, 2004). There are

also two types of portfolio: a working portfolio and a final portfolio. A working portfolio is an

accumulation of a student’s work throughout an extended period of time. It includes finished

pieces of art, as well as sketches and notes on projects. A final portfolio is a collection of the

student’s best pieces of art only. The sources deal with the working portfolio as a form of

assessment. Elementary school teachers can use working portfolios for each student by including

in them all of their work from the year and looking at growth patterns and artistic development.

The portfolio at the elementary school level allows teachers, parents, and administrators to

examine an individual student’s progress during a particular time frame and see how the child

has improved. Rather than focusing on one project, the portfolio incorporates numerous artworks

that, inevitably, present to the viewer an indicated growth pattern during an individual’s

academic year. Lowenfeld’s artistic stages of development may be observed if the portfolio

shows different stages of artistic development for a child. Such a collection provides the teacher

with examples of students’ change and growth.

123

III. Research

Methodology

The main objective of the research is to see if art educators believe that the art program at

the elementary school level should assign a letter and/or number grade as an effective form of

assessment. The study included only the Northeastern part of the United States of America, and

it was done throughout the course of six months.

The research was given to two different audiences for evaluation. First, the author

researched online different elementary schools in the states of Pennsylvania, New York and New

Jersey, known to have very strong art programs. These ten schools include: Clara E. Coleman

Elementary, East Coventry Elementary, Gidney Avenue Magnet School, Kresson School,

Moscow Elementary Center, Smith Humanities Magnet School, Theodore Roosevelt Elementary

School, Thomas J. Lahey Elementary, Union City Elementary, and Frances Willard Elementary.

After finding ten different elementary schools in the three states, the author contacted each

school’s art teacher through email and sent each a cover letter explaining the purpose of the

research and a questionnaire to be filled out by the teachers. The cover letter can be found in

APPENDIX A; the questionnaire can be found in APPENDIX B.

Next, the author contacted members of the Pennsylvania Art Education Association

(PAEA) through the site’s list server and educators in the Scranton, Pennsylvania school district.

Again, these members were contacted through email and were provided the same cover letter and

questionnaire. The reason for contacting PAEA members and Scranton educators, all of who are

currently or former art teachers at the elementary school level, was because there was a small

response from the first group of respondents. The second cover letter can be found in

APPENDIX C.

The following research represents a total of thirteen respondents. The schools involved

with the research are: Frances Willard Elementary, Maple Glen Elementary, Audubon-Number

42 Elementary, Prescott-Number 38 Elementary, Robert Morris Elementary, Whittier

Elementary, Richard McNichols Elementary, Kresson Elementary, Blackhawk Intermediate

Elementary, Cochran Elementary, Hepburn-Lycoming Elementary , Jackson Elementary , Round

Hills Elementary , Sheridan Elementary, Stevens Elementary, Stanwood Elementary , Bovard

Elementary, Moscow Elementary Center, Forest Hills Elementary, Union City Elementary, and

ACLD Tillotson Elementary. Note that all together there are twenty-one schools involved in the

124

research; that is because some of the respondents taught at more than one elementary school.

Also, one respondent was an assistant art supervisor of a school district and, therefore, he was

responsible for six different schools. Some of the questions were not answered by all of the

respondents. The findings are presented in the form of bar graphs.

Numerical Analysis:

The respondents’ answers to the following questions provide the basis for the written analysis:

1. Does your school assign a letter (A, B, C, D, F) / number grade (100%, 95, 90…65) in the

Visual Arts program?

Out of the thirteen respondents, only two stated that their school(s) did assign one of the two

forms of assessment. Eleven claimed that their school(s) did not assign such grading.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

No Yes

125

2. If you answered no to question 1, how does your school evaluate each child in the Visual Arts

program?

Five of the respondents stated that their school(s) awarded children grades through a number

system. For example, the number 4 represents the highest level of achievement in the art

program, and a 1 is the lowest. Four respondents said that their school(s) uses

satisfactory/unsatisfactory when evaluating children. Only one respondent said her school uses a

pass/fail system of assessing children, and one respondent said that she does not use any form of

assessment for grading in the art program at her school.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

# S/U P/F None

126

3. Does your school, or do you as the art teacher,

a. follow a rubric for each evaluative assignment in the art program?

Three of the respondents claimed that their schools do not use a rubric for each evaluative assignment in art. Eight state that they do use a rubric for all assignments that they evaluate.

b. follow a specific rubric for all of the assignments in the art program?

Six respondents stated that they use a very specific rubric for each project that they evaluate.

Four stated that they do not use a specific rubric.

012345678

No Yes

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

No Yes

127

4. If you answered yes to question 3.b, what is included in the rubric?

Respondents stated that they use craftsmanship, skills specific to the assignment, creativity,

complexity of each project, and idea and planning in the specific rubric.

5. If you answered no to question 3, how does your school, or you, determine grades?

Ironically, both five and six questions have very similar responses. Respondents stated for both

questions that they grade based on the behavior of the student, class participation,

achievement/personal growth, and understanding of objectives.

6. Do you personally, as an art educator, believe that the art program at the elementary school

level should enforce a letter and/or number grading system as an effective form of assessment?

Why? Why not?

As one notes, the research indicated above shows a disagreement between the two varying

beliefs in regard to grading at the elementary school level. Some of the teachers’ responses,

when asked for their opinion, include:

012345678

No Yes

128

-“I believe in assessment because children want to know how they are doing in a certain subject”

-“A letter grade helps parents and students view (art) differently”

-“If we want art to be seen as an essential part of our students’ education, then parents need to

see that it is worth grading”

-“The number or letter grade tells nothing about what the student knows and is able to do…and

so it is not a competition among children, but a competition within oneself to grow”

-“It adds ‘weight’ to the art program”

-“Assessment is not just about letter grades”

-“Without grades, teaching art might not be viewed as important as other subjects”

Therefore, it appears that the opinion on grading children in art at the elementary level

lacks a clear consensus. In general, art educators seem to “agree to disagree.”

IV. Conclusion

The purpose of this thesis was to examine the grading system in visual arts at the

elementary school level. Chapter One focused on the artistic stages of development for children

and compared this form of development with children’s natural, holistic, developmental patterns

of growth. Chapter Two’s main point was to show the readers different reasons why people are

in favor of, or are opposed to, grading in the visual arts. This Chapter further described different

methods of assessment art educators can use. Chapter Three’s purpose was to provide the results

of independent research on assessment in the art classroom. The research also investigated the

value of grades in the art program.

Based on the author’s research, it may be concluded that there are varying opinions about

grading in the visual arts. Several teachers stated that they believe that the visual arts should be

graded because of the legitimacy of what a letter grade means; others, however, stated that

grades do not offer an accurate measure of how the children experience the art process. Perhaps

one day educators will come to agreement regarding grading in the visual arts. At present,

educators continue to differ in their view of what is the most accurate form of assessment in the

visual arts at the elementary level.

129

References

Albert, Robert. "Some reasons why childhood creativity often fails to make it past

puberty into the real world ". New Direction for Child Development no. 72 (1996): 43-56.

Expanded Academic Search Elite. (Database online). May 2004.

Beghetto, Ronald. “Ideational code-switching: Walking the talk about supporting student

creativity in the classroom”. Roeper Review (2007): 265-231. Expanded Academic

Search Elite. (Database online.) Summer, 2007.

Cornett, Claudia. Creating meaning through literature and the arts: An integration

resource for classroom teachers. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc., 2007.

Eisner, Elliot. "The kind of Schools we need." Phi Delta Kappan 8, no. 83 (2002): 576-

583. Academic Search Elite. [Database online.] April, 2002.

Golumb, Claire. Young children's sculpture and drawing: A study in representation

development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974.

Goodnow, Jacqueline. Children Drawing. U.S.A: Harvard University Press, 1977.

Graczyk, Patricia, Roger P. Weissberg, John W. Payton, and Maurice J. Elias. The

handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers,

2000

Jensen, Eric. Arts with the brain in mind. U.S.A: Library of Congress Cataloging-in-

publication Data, 2001.

Keegan, Robert. "A difference of degree and not of kind." New Direction for Child

Development, no. 72 (1996): 57-66.

Kellogg, Rhonda, and Scott O'Dell. The psychology of children's art. U.S.A: Random

House Publication, 1967.

Levi, Albert W., and Ralph A. Smith. Art educator: A critical necessity . U.S.A: Library

of Congress Cataloging in-publication Data, 1991.

Lowenfeld , Viktor, and W.L. Brittain. Creative and mental growth. New York:

Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987.

Madeja, Stanley. “Alternative assessment strategies for schools”. Art Education Policy

Review (2004): 3-14.

Mendelowitz, Daniel. Children are artists. Standford: Standford University Press, 1963.

130

Murdock, Maureen. Spinning inward: Using guided imagery with children for learning

creativity and relaxation. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1987.

National Art Education Association. "http://www.naea-reston.org/whyart.html." Why

art?. Available from http://www.naea-reston.org/. Internet; accessed 08 October

2007; 19 February, 2008; 20 February, 2008.

"Reconsidering issues of assessment and achievement standards in art education."

Studies in Art Education, no. 38 (1997): 199-213.

Richards, Ruth. "Beyond piaget: Accepting divergent, chaotic, and creative thought."

New Directions for Child Development, no. 72 (1996): 67-86.

Runco, Mark. "Personal creativity: definition and developmental issues." New

Direction for Child Development, no. 72 (1996): 3-30.

Russ, Sandra. "Development of creative processes." New Direction for Child

Development, no. 72 (1996): 31-42.

Simpson, Judith. Creating meaning through art: Teacher as choice maker. Upper

Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1998.

Strickland, Kathleen, and James Strickland. Reflections on assessment. U.S.A:

Boynton/Cook Publishing, 1998.

Wallach, Michael A., and Nathan Kogan. Modes of thinking in young children. New

York: Rinehart and Winston Inc, 1965.

(2005, March). Goals 2000 Legislation and Related Items.. Retrieved February 20, 2008,

from Archived Information Web site: http://www.ed.gov/G2k/index.html

131

APPENDIX A

Elizabeth Damiano 42 Townsend Avenue Newburgh, NY 12550 (845) 220-8025 Daydreamer41586@aol.com

To Whom It May Concern:

Hello! My name is Elizabeth Damiano, and I am currently studying at Marywood

University with every intent of graduating this May, 2008, with an Undergraduate Bachelor of

Arts Degree in Art Education. Further, I am working on graduating in the Honors section at

Marywood University. The Honors section requires that students write a Thesis as an

Undergraduate, and I have decided to write my Senior Honors Thesis on why the Visual Arts

should not be given a letter and/or number grade in the Elementary Schools. I have researched

online and found your school to be strong in the Visual Arts program. Therefore, I am hoping

that you, the art teacher, will be willing to help my research by filling out this questionnaire. The

questionnaire will aid in the second chapter of my thesis, which involves my personal research

on the study of grading in the arts. If you have any questions/concerns, please feel free to contact

me at any point. Similarly, if you do not wish to participate in the questionnaire, I completely

understand and would appreciate if you could let me know of your decision to not contribute.

If you do plan on completing the questionnaire, please email the finished piece to me

before December, 2007, or earlier if possible

Thank you once again for your time and playing such a vital and contributing role in my

Undergraduate studies here at Marywood University.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Damiano

132

APPENDIX B

Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability. For questions 2 and 4, please

answer YES / NO.

1. Name of the Elementary School(s) where you teach

2. Does your school assign a letter (A, B, C, D, F) / number grade (100%, 95,

90…65) in the Visual Arts program?

3. If you answered no to question 2, how does your school evaluate each child in

the Visual Arts program?

4. Does your school, or you as the art teacher,

a. follow a rubric for each evaluative assignment in the art program?

b. follow a specific rubric for all of the assignments in the art program?

5. If you answered yes to question 4.b, what is included in the rubric?

133

6. If you answered no to question 4, how does your school, or you, determine

grades?

7. Do you personally, as an art educator, believe that the art program at the

Elementary School level should enforce a letter and/or number grading system as

an effective form of assessment? Why? Why not?

134

APPENDIX C

Elizabeth Damiano 42 Townsend Avenue Newburgh, NY 12550 (845) 220-8025 Daydreamer41586@aol.com

To Whom It May Concern:

In December I had sent out a questionnaire for Elementary Art Education teachers to fill

out for the purpose of helping me in conducting research in regards to fulfilling my Thesis

requirements at Marywood University. The Honors section requires that students write a Thesis

as an Undergraduate, and I have decided to write my Senior Honors Thesis on why the Visual

Arts should not be given a letter and/or number grade in the Elementary Schools. The

questionnaire will aid in the third chapter of my thesis, which involves my personal research on

the study of grading in the arts. The questionnaire does ask for the elementary school that you

teach in/have taught at; however, your name and the school that you teach in/have taught at will

not be included in any of my Thesis writing; the sole purpose of this information is for me to see

the locations of the Elementary Schools involved in my Thesis.

If anyone who has not yet sent a questionnaire back to me, and would like to help by

submitting one, please do so no later than February 22, 2008. The easiest and most convenient

way for you to reply back is through email. If you wish to do so, you may mail it to the above

address. For everyone who has contributed already by filling out my questionnaire, there is no

need to re-submit one, and I thank all of you for taking the time out of your busy lives to answer

those questions for me.

Thank you everyone in advance and I look forward to hearing from you!

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Damiano